Google version of 'slide-to-unlock' patent published by USPTO

Following a key Apple court win against Motorola in Germany over a 'slide-to-unlock' patent, Google last week saw its own unlocking patent filing from 2010 published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Google's original patent, titled "Input to Locked Computing Device," describes methods to unlock a device through a combination of touch or voice inputs, and could possibly be the answer to Apple's litigation regarding 'slide-to-unlock,' according to Patently Apple.

This iteration of lock screen input, first filed for in August 2010, varies from offerings like Apple's 'slide-to-unlock' in that it doesn't necessarily bring the user directly to the home screen, but instead executes at least one command such as making a phone call or opening an app.

From the patent abstract:

Quote:

The subject matter of this specification can be embodied in, among other things, a method that includes receiving at a computing device that is in a locked state, one or more user inputs to unlock the device and to execute at least one command that is different from a command for unlocking the device. The method further includes executing in response to the user inputs to unlock the device an unlocking operation by the device to convert the device from a locked state to an unlocked state. The method further includes executing the at least one command in response to receiving the user inputs to execute the at least one command. The at least one command executes so that results of executing the at least one command are first displayed on the device to a user automatically after the device changes from the locked state to the unlocked state.

The implementation of the patent could involve complex interaction with icons on a lock screen that would be difficult to perform accidentally.

Google gives the example below of a circular interface with three icons that can only be unlocked with multiple dragging actions, in this case the unlocking of a mail app. Alternately, touch input can be used with voice input to unlock the device as seen in the operations flowchart.

It remains in question whether the added layer of command execution varies enough from Apple's prior art of 'slide-to-unlock' to afford Google the rights to the new patent, however the USPTO's publication can be seen as a step in that direction.

Apple recently won a German injunction against Motorola over the company's slide-to-unlock patent, which has forced the RAZR maker to rethink its implementation of the lock screen inputs.

With Google on the verge of completing a buyout of Motorola Mobility, the internet giant will soon have a higher stake in the seemingly endless patent war currently being waged around the world.

What a beautiful and clever execution of a white question mark on a blue square field, which doesn't resemble Apple's "slide to unlock" method at all. That should easily side-step infringing upon Apple's patent

In a way, this smacks of hubris more than anything I've seen on either side.

When the slide-to-unlock feature was demonstrated, it was an novel solution to an novel problem. So some engineers looked at the solution, made a very slight variation, and then applied for (and got!) a patent. But what could possibly be more derivative than this? You might argue that the initial slide to unlock idea wasn't worth a patent. I'd disagree, but I could see someone making that argument. But this? Please. They didn't independently come up with a novel idea. They just did a very slight variation. Tiny variations are not supposed to be patentable.

A patent that extends someone else's patent is perfectly normal, and may be targeted at trying to set up a patent rights swap with the original's owner, if the variant is useful enough.

Whether it rises to the level of novelty that the USPTO examiner wants to see is up to the examiner. I've been through enough patent filings that that's basically a toss-up. Some examiners are a lot easier than others, and the level of expertise in the subject area can vary a lot as well. Patents aren't clearly strong until they get tested in court, though sometimes you can tell by reading them how likely they are to hold up, if you know the prior art in the area.

At first glance, it's at least plausible that this would be accepted, as long as Google includes the Apple slide-to-unlock as prior art, and as long as the claims are distinct enough. Usually the claims are whittled down a lot between the filing and the issued patent (assuming it ever issues). I don't know the prior art well enough, and haven't read either this filing or Apple's patent in detail, so my opinion is only semi-informed here...

There's lots of patents floating around that could potentially be problematic for Apple or others if "someone" felt it necessary to file for infringement. Apple doesn't have a corner on patents for basic features that might be found on a smartphone, tablet or use by a browser.

A patent that extends someone else's patent is perfectly normal, and may be targeted at trying to set up a patent rights swap with the original's owner, if the variant is useful enough.

Whether it rises to the level of novelty that the USPTO examiner wants to see is up to the examiner. I've been through enough patent filings that that's basically a toss-up. Some examiners are a lot easier than others, and the level of expertise in the subject area can vary a lot as well. Patents aren't clearly strong until they get tested in court, though sometimes you can tell by reading them how likely they are to hold up, if you know the prior art in the area.

At first glance, it's at least plausible that this would be accepted, as long as Google includes the Apple slide-to-unlock as prior art, and as long as the claims are distinct enough. Usually the claims are whittled down a lot between the filing and the issued patent (assuming it ever issues). I don't know the prior art well enough, and haven't read either this filing or Apple's patent in detail, so my opinion is only semi-informed here...

A "continuation application" is a patent application filed by an applicant who wants to pursue additional claims to an invention disclosed in an earlier application of the applicant (the "parent" application) that has not yet been issued or abandoned. The continuation uses the same specification as the pending parent application, claims the priority based on the filing date of the parent, and must name at least one of the inventors named in the parent application. This type of application is useful when a patent examiner allowed some, but rejected other claims in an application, or where an applicant may not have exhausted all useful ways of claiming different embodiments of the invention.[citation needed]

During the prosecution of a continuation application, the applicant may not add additional disclosure to the specification. If the inventor needs to supplement the disclosure of the earlier parent application, he must file a continuation-in-part application.[2]
In the typical case, a patent examiner will examine patent claims and amendments in an original patent application for two rounds of "office actions" before ending examination. However, often two office actions are not enough to resolve all of the issues in the patent prosecution. Therefore, it is common to think of a continuation application as though the applicant is merely purchasing more examination time from the patent examiner.[citation needed]

There's lots of patents floating around that could potentially be problematic for Apple or others if "someone" felt it necessary to file for infringement. Apple doesn't have a corner on patents for basic features that might be found on a smartphone, tablet or use by a browser.

Absolutely correct. That's for a court to decide if it's put to the test. FWIW, the patent I mentioned, applied to searching within emails for specific text strings (fairly basic) is owned by Google. They've been very quietly targeting specific types of technology patents by the looks of things.

In a move industry analysts describe as "inevitable," this week Johnson & Johnson has acquired patents on both itching and scratching. In a unrelated story, company executives deny allegations that a cross of poison ivy and kudzu has breached a containment facility at the multi-national's New Jersey-based genetic engineering division.

Now if someone can only manage to acquire rights to the gesture which resembles slowly shaking a beer can up and down, they can really get rich.

This is the sort of grotesquerie that results when corporate interest buy and sell legislators a six pack at a time. As a long-term HIV survivor, I've donated buckets of blood to researchers attempting to determine why I'm not dead. I'm sure any useful discovery will be patented, at which point I suppose I can look forward to being sued for unauthorized possession of my own genome.

Absolutely correct. That's for a court to decide if it's put to the test. FWIW, the patent I mentioned, applied to searching within emails for specific text strings (fairly basic) is owned by Google. They've been very quietly targeting specific types of technology patents by the looks of things.

Why do you say that the patent is owned by Google. It blatantly obvious that the assignee (OWNER) of that patent is Hewlett-Packard?

It may be a strong marketing point in getting manufacturers to use it. I doubt very many buyers of Android phones care at all, nor even know what open source is in the first place. I don't think "open source" is even a minor selling point for the average buyer.

In any case the Android OS may be open source. . or not. The individual pieces and patents used outside the package would not unless deemed so by the holder.

As usual, nothing Google can seem to create doesn't come from ex-NeXT and ex-Apple alumni.

Jeff is a great guy. He's no Keith Ohlfs, but then again he followed Keith to WebTV where Keith developed WebTV UI.

What I have noticed are several ex-NeXT colleagues of mine who have begun to recently leave Google to do other start ups.

The Valley is a small world.

For you see, 9/10 great hardware/OS ideas come from folks who worked for a Steven P. Jobs corporation.

It's amazing how few of these new companies have anything worth a crap to crow about without former talent from Steve's own visionary teams to aide in their efforts.

Then perhaps we can look forward to another whisper campaign attacking someone's reputation if this patent ever becomes an issue: Jeff clearly stole the whole idea from Steve Jobs while working under him years ago.

In a way, this smacks of hubris more than anything I've seen on either side.

When the slide-to-unlock feature was demonstrated, it was an novel solution to an novel problem. So some engineers looked at the solution, made a very slight variation, and then applied for (and got!) a patent. But what could possibly be more derivative than this? You might argue that the initial slide to unlock idea wasn't worth a patent. I'd disagree, but I could see someone making that argument. But this? Please. They didn't independently come up with a novel idea. They just did a very slight variation. Tiny variations are not supposed to be patentable.

In my opinion, if slide-to-unlock deserves a patent, so does this. Then again, I don't think slide-to-unlock deserves a patent. It is after all "an obvious idea any engineer in the field would have had"...
I'll even go further... it is the kind of technology you'd find in a fantasy book.

"The dwarf looked at him baffled. The elf put his hand on the silvery door and slid it to the left. To the dwarf's amazement, the engraving of an iron bar covered in runes slid along, and the door silently opened."

I'm no Tolkien, but still, this is believably "fantasy-ish". Patent that? I call the prior art of Bilbo the Hobbit!

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.